• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Canon 10x32 IS (1 Viewer)

Jonno52

John
Supporter
United Kingdom
I'm not attempting a full review (for that, see henry link's excellent review). Nor do I have any expertise in optics.

The reason for buying these was that, while I'd never want to be without my Swaro 10x42 EL SVs, at 71 I can no longer always hold them steady enough, unless I'm braced against something. I'm now largely flatbound by neuropathy, so sometimes I can lean against a window frame and get a fairly steady view, but I fancied some reasonably lightweight image stabilized bins of the same magnification. I already had the Canon 18x50s.

Image quality is pretty impressive, and the bins are rather lighter than the Swaros (780g as against 840g). To me the stabilization seems excellent. I couldn't immediately see much difference between the two stabilizer options, "image stabllizer" and "POWERD". but tried looking at Venus (I'm no astronomer). No stabilization: it jiggled all over the night sky like crazy. With "Image stabilizer" (which I gather uses variable angle prisms) it still danced about a bit, thought within a much smaller area. With POWERD (which uses the same lens-shift system as Canon IS photographic lenses) I saw a steady single point of light. I now find the difference quite evident when watching birds. With POWERD the view is as rock solid as a scope. They're perfectly usable "as is" if the batteries (two AAs) fail.

There's some CA on high contrast targets, but much less than on the 18x50s, and it's entirely acceptable, for me anyway. It's a matter of degree: if I look for colour fringing on such targets with the SVs it's hardly noticeable but certainly present.

The field looks very flat. FOV is 105m at 1000m, compared with 112m for the Swaros. This would no doubt look terrible compared with Swaro Pures, but I haven't looked through those and ignorance is bliss.

The eyecups aren't brilliant, but I can certainly live with them and there's no way I'll risk trying to modify them. The rainguard is OK but I quickly gave up trying to attach it to the strap. With a bit of luck I might not lose it when on a field outing, if Covid ever allows another one.

Eye placement is critical, to avoid losing part of the field of view, or getting blackouts, but with care it's possible to avoid both.

I have a dry eye condition (MGD) and my eyes quickly get tired and sore when looking through the 18x50s, and though it's less of a problem with the 10x32s, they don't give the instantly comfortable ease of view of the Swaros (or my 8x32 Conquest HDs). But again, I can live with this.

As with the 18x50s, you can either hold down the button to keep the stabilization on, or press it once for it to stay on for 5 minutes (which I prefer). If you take them from your eyes and leave them hanging down against your chest, the IS turns off after 10 seconds to save battery power, a good feature.

The soft-touch coating may become sticky eventually. I'm already familiar with the issue from the handles of some kitchen knives bought from Sainsbury's. If the worst happens, it seems (from a search about soft touch coatings on a variety of products) that isopropyl alcohol will get it off without too much trouble. There are videos on YouTube. It shouldn't be necessary at all, of course, and you'd expect better from Canon.

The 10x42L IS WP didn't appeal as much, because while they're waterproof, they're more expensive (price direct from Canon £1999.99, though you can get them a lot cheaper from dealers), a good deal heavier and use the variable angle prism system only. The 10x32 focus a little closer, 2 metres as against 2.5 metres.

What led me to buy when I did was price. There were very few dealers who had them in stock:

Direct from Canon: £1,299.99
Clifton Cameras: £1,309.00
Wex Photographic: £1,199.00
but then Amazon: £706.99. ("Fulfilled by Amazon", which meant they'd refund if anything went wrong).

I ordered from Amazon. Shortly after I got mine, the Amazon price went up to £1,299. It's currently £1,152.75.

I can see much more detail with these than with any bins I've looked through, and they're something of a revelation.
 
Last edited:

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
I'm not attempting a full review (for that, see henry link's excellent review). Nor do I have any expertise in optics.

The reason for buying these was that, while I'd never want to be without my Swaro 10x42 EL SVs, at 71 I can no longer always hold them steady enough, unless I'm braced against something. I'm now largely flatbound by neuropathy, so sometimes I can lean against a window frame and get a fairly steady view, but I fancied some reasonably lightweight image stabilized bins of the same magnification. I already had the Canon 18x50s.

Image quality is pretty impressive, and the bins are rather lighter than the Swaros (780g as against 840g). To me the stabilization seems excellent. I couldn't immediately see much difference between the two stabilizer options, "image stabllizer" and "POWERD". but tried looking at Venus (I'm no astronomer). No stabilization: it jiggled all over the night sky like crazy. With "Image stabilizer" (which I gather uses variable angle prisms) it still danced about a bit, thought within a much smaller area. With POWERD (which uses the same lens-shift system as Canon IS photographic lenses) I saw a steady single point of light. I now find the difference quite evident when watching birds. With POWERD the view is as rock solid as a scope. They're perfectly usable "as is" if the batteries (two AAs) fail.

There's some CA on high contrast targets, but much less than on the 18x50s, and it's entirely acceptable, for me anyway. It's a matter of degree: if I look for colour fringing on such targets with the SVs it's hardly noticeable but certainly present.

The field looks very flat. FOV is 105m at 1000m, compared with 112m for the Swaros. This would no doubt look terrible compared with Swaro Pures, but I haven't looked through those and ignorance is bliss.

The eyecups aren't brilliant, but I can certainly live with them and there's no way I'll risk trying to modify them. The rainguard is OK but I quickly gave up trying to attach it to the strap. With a bit of luck I might not lose it when on a field outing, if Covid ever allows another one.

Eye placement is critical, to avoid losing part of the field of view, or getting blackouts, but with care it's possible to avoid both.

I have a dry eye condition (MGD) and my eyes quickly get tired and sore when looking through the 18x50s, and though it's less of a problem with the 10x32s, they don't give the instantly comfortable ease of view of the Swaros (or my 8x32 Conquest HDs). But again, I can live with this.

As with the 18x50s, you can either hold down the button to keep the stabilization on, or press it once for it to stay on for 5 minutes (which I prefer). If you take them from your eyes and leave them hanging down against your chest, the IS turns off after 10 seconds to save battery power, a good feature.

The soft-touch coating may become sticky eventually. I'm already familiar with the issue from the handles of some kitchen knives bought from Sainsbury's. If the worst happens, it seems (from a search about soft touch coatings on a variety of products) that isopropyl alcohol will get it off without too much trouble. There are videos on YouTube. It shouldn't be necessary at all, of course, and you'd expect better from Canon.

The 10x42L IS WP didn't appeal as much, because while they're waterproof, they're more expensive (price direct from Canon £1999.99, though you can get them a lot cheaper from dealers), a good deal heavier and use the variable angle prism system only. The 10x32 focus a little closer, 2 metres as against 2.5 metres.

What led me to buy when I did was price. There were very few dealers who had them in stock:

Direct from Canon: £1,299.99
Clifton Cameras: £1,309.00
Wex Photographic: £1,199.00
but then Amazon: £706.99. ("Fulfilled by Amazon", which meant they'd refund if anything went wrong).

I ordered from Amazon. Shortly after I got mine, the Amazon price went up to £1,299. It's currently £1,152.75.

I can see much more detail with these than with any bins I've looked through, and they're something of a revelation.

It is an interesting aspect of the IS issue, that even an optically modest glass such as the 10x32 proves to be 'something of a revelation'.
It simply underscores what Kimmo said much earlier, that he would no longer consider binoculars without IS, the difference is much too great.
I do think that 706 pounds for the 10x32 is a great deal, so good on you!
 

Hermann

Well-known member
It is an interesting aspect of the IS issue, that even an optically modest glass such as the 10x32 proves to be 'something of a revelation'.

That's precisely my thoughts after having used the humble Canon 8x20 IS a lot since June. I see more detail with the 8x20 than with any of my 8x32s.

It simply underscores what Kimmo said much earlier, that he would no longer consider binoculars without IS, the difference is much too great.

I'd buy the 10x32 in a heartbeat if it had a larger diopter correction range. +/- 3 diopters doesn't cut it for me.

Hermann
 

Patudo

Well-known member
Thanks for your notes, John. I need to try the other IS products next time I'm at Birdfair (if that ever happens...) - I tried the 10x42 and the 18x50 but not the others last time, and 10x32 is a format that definitely has more interest to me than some of their others.

After reading your post the first thing I thought was - have you ever tried a monopod or something similar (like the "finnstick" our Nordic friends use) to brace your 10x42 SV with, and if so, how did you find the results?

Hopefully you're in a spot where interesting things can be seen from your window - there are in fact quite a few flats in my area that would be really good vantage points. If you don't mind my asking, where are you in S London? I'm in Zone 1, right in the thick of it.
 

Jonno52

John
Supporter
United Kingdom
Thanks to all for your responses, sorry I've been silent for so long.

I don't wear glasses when using bins. I have reading glasses and "computer glasses" (both are necessary) and distance glasses (which are rarely used). On the tricky issue of dioptric adjustment, on the EL SVs it's set at minus 3⅔ (between 3 and 4 there are two intermediate positions). On the Canons, what works for me is setting it at minus 1.4 (the scale doesn't show numerals, just lines) ie slightly less than minus 1½. I check the dioptric adjustment for all my bins about twice a year, and recently confirmed them using a target 109 yards away (as measured by laser rangefinder). This discrepancy makes no sense, I accept, but having checked several times, I get the same results. On my Conquest HDs, the adjustment is set at minus 2½. Sorry Hermann, this won't be much help to you.

It's only the SVs which actually show numerals on the dioptric scale. On the other bins, there are just lines, and I have to admit that it's only recently dawned on me that the dioptric markings on various bins are not just arbitrary, and different for each instrument (ie only "marks to help you remember") but have an absolute value as a scientific scale. I'm a big fan of science but don't have a very scientific mind, as you'll have gathered by now :(.

As for the Canon eye cups, I position them so that the top and bottom edges are both touching my face. It's a fine balance: if my eyes get too close to the lenses there are blackouts (which are annoying) and if they're too far away, I don't get the full field of view (which is less annoying). In practice I genuinely don't have a problem with these eye cups.

Another thing worth mentioning is IPD. After I bought the 18x50s, I read a comment about those on another site (probably Cloudy Nights). I didn't note the exact wording, but it was something like "Why is it that however I set the IPD, it never seems exactly right?" That expresses very well how I sometimes find the 18x50s. With the 10x32s I occasionally get a very slight suggestion of the same feeling, but it's much less marked than with the 18x50s and doesn't bother me.

All this doesn't sound much of a sales pitch for the 10x32s! but I don't regret buying them in the least, and positively enjoy using them every day.

Patudo: I have a Manfrotto monopod but have never tried using it with bins. I can't see that working, it would be too inflexible an arrangement. I'm in Streatham, fairly high up and have seen some good birds occasionally. The House Sparrows, Chaffinches and Greenfinches which were around all day in the 1980s have vanished (I've seen individuals of each species just once in the last 7 years). But I've seen and photographed Buzzards, Red Kites, Sparrowhawks and Grey Wagtails. The biggest surprise was a Ring Ouzel on the grass behind my block on 23 October 2019 (I posted some pics in the Gallery at the time, one is attached to show this wasn't an aberrant Blackbird).

I'll try to respond more promptly to any further questions.

Cheers

John
 

Attachments

  • Ring Ouzel 443A4094.jpg
    Ring Ouzel 443A4094.jpg
    674.2 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top